separation merits serious re-examination” and recommended
that HM Treasury conducts a
further review.

The Treasury Select
Committee’s reasons are centred
on the fact that the enforcement
activities of the FCA would benefit from greater independence
because they would have greater
clarity of their objectives.

The Treasury Select
Committee also highlighted the
fact that, currently, the FCA’s
enforcement team has no remit
to oversee enforcement relating
to prudential activities.

The FCA’s predecessor – the
Financial Services Authority
– had this hived off to the
Prudential Regulation Authority
when the new regulator was
established.

In July, the UK’s Treasury Select Committee has renewed calls
for separating the enforcement arm of Financial Conduct
Authority from the main
regulator.

It’s not the first time we’ve
heard such a recommendation.
The Parliamentary Commission
on Banking Standards previously said a break up of the regulator would be in the best interests
of UK financial services.

This latest proposal,
announced by Andrew Tyrie,
chairman of the Treasury Select
committee, stated “the case for

Lose lose

Personally, I believe the failing
here lies in the assumption that
individual behaviours and corporate cultures would change if the
threat of more comprehensive
and independent enforcement
action was more significant. I
don’t believe that to be true.

Yes, only one senior HBoS
figure has been sanctioned
since the bank’s collapse so far.
However, the action relating to
HBoS isn’t representative of the
market as a whole.

Since the credit crisis, the
consequences of not following
regulation are starker than ever.
In 2015, Barclays was slapped
with a £284 million fine from
the FCA for Forex manipulation, with Deutsche Bank also
hit with a £227 million ticket.